Kevin Low

There is a shipping vessel stuck at Suez Canal right now. And there awaits hundreds of container vessels, ships awaiting to get through the canal – on both sides. This canal was built in 1869 precisely to prevent ships having to sail down to the Cape of Good Hope, allowing the maritime journey between Europe and Asia to cut by almost half. And of course, it became a very dominant and signficant part of the global shipping route.

There are well trodden paths and shortcuts that we can use when thinking about our lives and careers but every now and then, a disruption occurs, and the landscape changes. It might mean we have to wait, or we can take that long circuitous path people used to take.

Unless you think you’re a piece of good that finds its meaning only in reaching the destination, as a person, the actual journey might help you figure out who you are, what you’re here for, and what you should be doing, a bit better than just trying to go down the paths and shoutcuts everyone is shouting at you about.

In school we are taught a lot what to do; and we are told what good awaits us when we are right (which is about doing what the system wants). On the contrary, they don’t really tell you what happens when we are wrong. It’s the “or else…” kind of subtle threat. And that’s because we want to keep the students, the kids thumbed down, we fear the demolition of the power hierarchy in place. Or maybe it’s just pride, the pride our system teach us to have.

What if we allow ourselves, and encourage everyone to ask “or else what?” And to really clarify what happens when we are wrong? Because there is value to it. It is easier to know what to study to get better in the next test when you go over what you did wrong in the previous one (assuming the tests are cumulative in the content they cover); it is better to know the consequences or worst case scenario before you embark on a mission. You can invest with more conviction if you know what is the residual value of a business when the venture fails.

So much of our lives actually depends on us surviving through times when we are wrong but we’re never quite taught to think that way. We are taught to daydream about being right and then we are penalised by our inability to take the right risks and make the right mistakes.

In the bible, Jesus talks about the parable of the sower and shared about seeds falling on different ground (Mark 4, Matthew 13 and Luke 8) and that gives different outcomes. The focus was on the grounds; the seed was the same across all of the grounds. But when the ground was different, it affected the growth and the development of the seed.

Yet it was what is latent in the seed that allowed that interaction with the ground to produce plants that bore fruits. And you know, all that crazy back-and-forth about nature or nurture is a false dichotomy at the end of the day. It takes nurture to bring out what is nature; and it takes latent potential to allow nurturing to do its work. What we need to do however, is to suspend judgement and not to allow tangible measures to overwhelm our sense of perception. We are better than that; teachers can see potential of students beyond just looking at their grades or getting them to take a test. But yet we prefer to fall back on the numbers.

In a society like Singapore where humans are the most important and valuable asset (read: not resource) that we have in our city state, we ought to start valuing people (not by their salary) and treating them as humans. We need to stop trying to measure potential and assume those potential will run its course to manifest in reality. Instead, we ought to be helping everyone grow to their potential without assuming what those potentials are. When we start believing in people, as opposed to mechanical systems; when we start empowering people to treat others as humans, to interact organically, we’ll place ourselves on a new growth trajectory.

Normalcy is overhyped. Wishing things were going ‘back to normal’ is basically hoping to return to comfort zone. But we all know if that really happens it means we declined or stagnated, it means the point of the changes were not really taken in, growth was forgone in search for comfort.

We talk about ‘new normal’ as if changes should be once off, and things settle back in an ‘equilibrium’. I think we are capable of handling dynamics way more than our economic equations would care to suggest. Some things I observe in the retail business activities out there at large is interesting:

• Takeaways are increasingly important for F&B businesses outside; but a lot of them are still sub-optimal in the way they prepare food to be packed and then sent out for delivery or for self-collection. This might be an area ripe for some disruption though the gains from it is uncertain.
• Self-service checkouts are increasingly usual and more sophisticated as the machines tend to be able to detect the entire shopping basket of goods when you put them into the sensor area. Packaging into shopping bags appears to still be a bottleneck. For non-food places, this can work nicely (people can chuck products into their bags or just store-sold totes/paper-bags) but for food outlets, new solutions might be needed.
• Dinning outlets might have to rethink their desire for quick turn-around of customers because of cost associated with wiped-down, etc. It might pay off for them to keep customer around longer, feed them with increasingly high margin foods (smaller portions, higher priced) – which is likely the drinks and the desserts (prepare a menu for after-mains). Better queue-management systems like from Haidilao that really gets customers vested in the queue would help.
• Given more work-from-home, there’s more on-demand food delivery but would food-subscription based business be more efficient? Especially when one already suffer from decision-fatigue while working.

None of these things were ‘normal’ years ago but now they kind of are. And they continue to be evolving and changing. So what does ‘back to normal’ really mean? Nothing.

When we approach our employment, we can take on a very pragmatic, transactional approach. And it is the same on the other side; the employers can be transactional. They can come up with a HR policy that is attractive, that provides a “return on recruitment” and with good “management of talents” that allows them to utilise the talents and generate the outcomes for the organisation.

Then the individuals in these system can maximise their career outcomes, their profiles, their remuneration while offloading as much of their individual risks and taking credit for outcomes as far as possible. There will be innovation for the sake of staking a claim, planting a flag for one’s profile rather than genuine client or industry interest. There will probably be some greenwashing to skew external perception. There will be a lot of gaming the system when people cannot tell apart commitments from actual outcomes.

The world could be different if HR was different; if we are collectively less transactional about employment. Where we make use of our surpluses- in terms of savings, inherited wealth and be able to say no to transactional employers. We can choose only those who invest in their people rather than milk them. We can refuse to play the game that people are setting up. We can maximise not our careers but our impact, and create a future we want for ourselves and future generation through our work.

Companies are going out there and committing to carbon-neutrality, net-zero and all that catchphases. I wonder if they really know what it entails or it’s a case of talking first and sorting things out later especially when the guy on top may not be holding on to his job by the “deadline”.

When Bill Gates tried to exit fossil fuel from his portfolio, he began to realise how hard it was. I think we only start recognising the difficulty or the ease of certain things when we start doing them. If we keep putting them off then we will never discover the true extent of the difficulty.

Take action now. Refine later. Instead of promising now and doing later.